 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| People v. Buskirk, D054757,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 24, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No Miranda violation occurred when defendant asked for a lawyer upon his arrest, was told that a detective would discuss his rights with him later, and then waived his rights after being informed of them; defendant did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during questioning because he was not being interrogated at the time of his arrest.
|
|||||
| Drake v. Superior Court, H033614,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the trial court erred in the specific reason it gave for denying petitioner's application for certificate of probable cause - i.e., that it was untimely under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), a writ of mandate was issued directing the trial court to vacate its order denying petitioner's application and to conduct further proceedings.
|
|||||
| People v. Carrington, S043628,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 27, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized during searches of her home because the police did not exceed the scope of the search authorized by the warrant, and they lawfully observed a murder victim's property in plain view in defendant's home.
|
|||||
| Conservatorship of Becerra, D053519,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of sanctions on an attorney pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., ¿¿ 177.5, 575.2, was error because the alleged professional misconduct was not a ground for sanctions, no violation of a court order was identified, and the order failed to meet the requirement of ¿ 177.5 that it recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.
|
|||||
| Farahani v. San Diego Community College Dist., D054087,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, July 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Community college district was properly ordered to reinstate a faculty member because Ed. Code, ¿ 87485, rendered null and void a "last chance agreement" under which the faculty member waived statutory due process rights relating to faculty discipline. By its terms, ¿ 87485 rendered null and void any such agreement.
|
|||||
| People v. Brown, C059314,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, July 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine base for sale, the trial court did not err in not requiring counsel to move to withdraw defendant's plea, where the trial court appointed counsel to investigate the merits of the motion and counsel found that there was not good cause for such a motion.
|
|||||
| People v. Hirata, No. B212061,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, July 28, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Information in an affidavit in support of a search warrant of defendant's home was stale. Delay between a completed drug transaction and the issuance of the warrant was 82 days, but the affidavit contained no facts showing that during that time, there were any drug sales at defendant's home or that he engaged in such transactions.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
